Yes, I have. More than once. The rules that call for a follower of Judaism to kill the sinner specify that a trial be held first. Additionally, in Acts 15 those rules are suspended for the followers of Christ.
It seems likely that a Higher Power that has designed human beings will know what course of action will lead to their greatest happiness. As opposed to a moral system thought up by men, who may or may not be correct about what brings the greatest happiness.
A couple of points, first, those calls for the death of a sinner are only to be carried out after a trial (which is described elsewhere) which must follow certain rules (as opposed to Islam, which explicitly calls on any believer to carry out its penalties). Second, those penalties are not called for from Christians (see Acts 15).
I don't share the view of the extremists, but how does not drawing the Prophet Mohamed hurt anyone?
Because the same people that will come after you for making drawings of Mohamed the pedophile will come after you for other things that do matter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director) ). If we do not want them to gradually strangle freedom of speech, they must be confronted at every opportunity.
Yeah, that would work. Of course, they would likely then be doing their best to track you down so they could do a Theo Van Gogh on you (and if you are at an inconvenient place for them to do that to you, posting your information on boards so that someone else can)..
They believe they have the truth. So, even if you don't believe, you would be sinning against their prophet and Allah. For them, you are simply blind. You don't have the right to a different opinion since yours would be false.
It's the same thing with Christians that follow the rules by the book.
Except that following the rules by the book does not command Christians to kill the sinner.
morality can easily exist without religion. In fact its better. In the bible, people are punished terribly and painfully for even the slightest sin, or possibly forgiven for the worst sins if they can make jesus orgasm. Oh, and if you don't, you get tortured for eternity. And people think Gitmo was bad. Hitler ain't got SHIT on God. God is perhaps the most unethical proposed existence I have ever heard of.
Human rights? They are fought by religion, and protected by the same people who work to protect truth, science, and logic.
What is the basis for morality without a Higher Power? Why should I follow your morals if the physical is all there is?
The problem is that such regulations don't hurt the people who caused the problems. Those people actually favor greater regulation, it makes it harder for others to compete with them.
For example, these new banking regulations they are trying to pass will probably result in a large number of small banks going out of business because they will not be able to afford to meet the new reporting requirements. Which will mean that the big banks will get bigger. Goldman Sachs, which made money off of the collapse of the financial system, will get bigger and more powerful.
You don't seem to understand that greater government regulation results in more people who don't produce anything, people who make money by taking advantage of the new regulations (whether it is exploiting the loopholes or interpreting the regulations for companies or something else). The solution is simpler regulations (not necessarily looser, just less complicated).
The problem with that is that we have good evidence that a Carbon tax does exactly what we want it to do.
We do? I don't seem to recall anyone ever having a Carbon tax. For that matter, what do you mean by a Carbon tax? Are you talking about taxing everything according to how much carbon it has in it? If not what exactly is the Carbon tax?
It is time for people to be specific about what they are proposing to tax. Are you talking about a tax on all fuels that release CO2 when they are burned? Most of the proposals I have seen appear to be something more complicated.
However in this case they were referring to the definiton of "liberal" used at places like Berkeley, not the classic definition (the classic definition being the one that you used in describing a "liberal"). Generally in the U.S., those who meet the classic definition of "liberal", self-identify as "conservative". This leads to quite a bit of confusion in most discussions. While not all who self-identify as "conservative" are classic liberals, almost none of those who self-identify as "liberal" are classic liberals.
Actually, free oxygen is a very good choice. Oxygen is a very volatile chemical, that in the absence of life tends to react with other chemicals and release energy. There are very few natural processes that produce free oxygen, except for life.
There are other compounds similar to O2 that would also be good indicators for the presence of life. In the absence of life, most planetary systems will have atmospheres where the chemical reactions have all occurred so as to result in the chemical compounds with the lowest potential energy. Any planet where the atmosphere is in such a state does not have life. Any planet where the atmosphere is not in such a state is likely to have life and is certainly interesting for whatever is causing that affect, even if it doesn't have life.
1) Basic geometry -- you have to station a slew of defensive missiles every 20 miles along your borders. That's because you are not going to hit anything going Mach 12 across your path-- you need a close to head-on intercept angle.
Actually, you only have to set them up close enough to your enemy's launch sites to intercept the missiles shortly after launch (which was the theory behind the Bush Administration making agreements to place them in several Eastern European countries and other places closer to potential launch sites than U.S. soil).
Actually, I wonder how much the fact that movies and TV shows tend to portray those who commit crimes as being ulgy has to do with the results of this study.
Microsoft has been 'me too' since early days. Microsoft's strategy has been to let some other company prove there is a market for a particular function then write a competing product and gradually improve it (and modify the OS so that the competitor doesn't run as well) until they take over the market (see: Excel, Word, Internet Explorer...to name a few). It doesn't always work (see MS Money).
Several problems, one: Socialist to Capitalist is an economic spectrum, not a political one. Two: there is no such thing as a capitalist police state. in order for an economic system to be capitalist, the individual must be able to decide how to use the means of production that said individual controls (whether that means of production is a large amount of capital equipment or merely that individual's personal labor).
The political spectrum runs from all rights and powers deriving from the individual to all rights and powers deriving from the group. The only difference between Communism and Fascism is how they define the group.
Except the party in Fascism is a very small group at the top as compared to the party in Communism as the entire population.
Where has that ever been true of Communism? Every Communist country I have ever heard of there is a very small group at the top, who reap almost all of the benefits, just like in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. Where have you ever seen a Communist country where the whole didn't work for the benefit of the few.
I believe the problem here is that you are comparing the ideals of Communism to the actual execution of Fascism rather than either the execution of Communism or the ideals of Fascism.
as to your analogy:
COMMUNISM:
You have two cows
The government takes both and promises to give you milk next year (while the Party bosses bathe in milk this year)
FASCISM:
You have two cows
The government takes both, sells you a little milk and promises to give you new, improved cows next year (while the Party bosses dine on steak).
Both fascists and communists emphasize the good of the group (as defined by the Party) over the good of the individual (as defined by the individual). How is nationalism at the other end of the political spectrum from that? Nationalist political organizations are almost always in favor of strong central government, although there are exceptions.
Slashdot Mirror
What in your rant would convince the Columbine killers to not do what they did?
Really? When was the last time you heard a Muslim expound on how Mary represents a model for Muslim behavior?
As, I responded to others, why should the Columbine killers not have done what they did?
Yes, I have. More than once. The rules that call for a follower of Judaism to kill the sinner specify that a trial be held first. Additionally, in Acts 15 those rules are suspended for the followers of Christ.
And why should I follow those rules? Why should the Columbine killers not have done what they did?
It would have been even more unusual if she was below the age of 12.
What basis is there for following God's will?
It seems likely that a Higher Power that has designed human beings will know what course of action will lead to their greatest happiness. As opposed to a moral system thought up by men, who may or may not be correct about what brings the greatest happiness.
Why should I give a shit about what is a beneficial trait for the species? Why should the Columbine killers not have done what they did?
A couple of points, first, those calls for the death of a sinner are only to be carried out after a trial (which is described elsewhere) which must follow certain rules (as opposed to Islam, which explicitly calls on any believer to carry out its penalties). Second, those penalties are not called for from Christians (see Acts 15).
I don't share the view of the extremists, but how does not drawing the Prophet Mohamed hurt anyone?
Because the same people that will come after you for making drawings of Mohamed the pedophile will come after you for other things that do matter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director) ). If we do not want them to gradually strangle freedom of speech, they must be confronted at every opportunity.
Yeah, that would work. Of course, they would likely then be doing their best to track you down so they could do a Theo Van Gogh on you (and if you are at an inconvenient place for them to do that to you, posting your information on boards so that someone else can)..
They believe they have the truth. So, even if you don't believe, you would be sinning against their prophet and Allah. For them, you are simply blind. You don't have the right to a different opinion since yours would be false.
It's the same thing with Christians that follow the rules by the book.
Except that following the rules by the book does not command Christians to kill the sinner.
We have no record of how old Mary the Mother of Jesus was when she married Joseph.
morality can easily exist without religion. In fact its better. In the bible, people are punished terribly and painfully for even the slightest sin, or possibly forgiven for the worst sins if they can make jesus orgasm. Oh, and if you don't, you get tortured for eternity. And people think Gitmo was bad. Hitler ain't got SHIT on God. God is perhaps the most unethical proposed existence I have ever heard of.
Human rights? They are fought by religion, and protected by the same people who work to protect truth, science, and logic.
What is the basis for morality without a Higher Power? Why should I follow your morals if the physical is all there is?
The problem is that such regulations don't hurt the people who caused the problems. Those people actually favor greater regulation, it makes it harder for others to compete with them.
For example, these new banking regulations they are trying to pass will probably result in a large number of small banks going out of business because they will not be able to afford to meet the new reporting requirements. Which will mean that the big banks will get bigger. Goldman Sachs, which made money off of the collapse of the financial system, will get bigger and more powerful.
You don't seem to understand that greater government regulation results in more people who don't produce anything, people who make money by taking advantage of the new regulations (whether it is exploiting the loopholes or interpreting the regulations for companies or something else). The solution is simpler regulations (not necessarily looser, just less complicated).
The problem with that is that we have good evidence that a Carbon tax does exactly what we want it to do.
We do? I don't seem to recall anyone ever having a Carbon tax. For that matter, what do you mean by a Carbon tax? Are you talking about taxing everything according to how much carbon it has in it? If not what exactly is the Carbon tax?
It is time for people to be specific about what they are proposing to tax. Are you talking about a tax on all fuels that release CO2 when they are burned? Most of the proposals I have seen appear to be something more complicated.
However in this case they were referring to the definiton of "liberal" used at places like Berkeley, not the classic definition (the classic definition being the one that you used in describing a "liberal"). Generally in the U.S., those who meet the classic definition of "liberal", self-identify as "conservative". This leads to quite a bit of confusion in most discussions. While not all who self-identify as "conservative" are classic liberals, almost none of those who self-identify as "liberal" are classic liberals.
Actually, free oxygen is a very good choice. Oxygen is a very volatile chemical, that in the absence of life tends to react with other chemicals and release energy. There are very few natural processes that produce free oxygen, except for life.
There are other compounds similar to O2 that would also be good indicators for the presence of life. In the absence of life, most planetary systems will have atmospheres where the chemical reactions have all occurred so as to result in the chemical compounds with the lowest potential energy. Any planet where the atmosphere is in such a state does not have life. Any planet where the atmosphere is not in such a state is likely to have life and is certainly interesting for whatever is causing that affect, even if it doesn't have life.
1) Basic geometry -- you have to station a slew of defensive missiles every 20 miles along your borders. That's because you are not going to hit anything going Mach 12 across your path-- you need a close to head-on intercept angle.
Actually, you only have to set them up close enough to your enemy's launch sites to intercept the missiles shortly after launch (which was the theory behind the Bush Administration making agreements to place them in several Eastern European countries and other places closer to potential launch sites than U.S. soil).
Actually, I wonder how much the fact that movies and TV shows tend to portray those who commit crimes as being ulgy has to do with the results of this study.
Microsoft has been 'me too' since early days. Microsoft's strategy has been to let some other company prove there is a market for a particular function then write a competing product and gradually improve it (and modify the OS so that the competitor doesn't run as well) until they take over the market (see: Excel, Word, Internet Explorer...to name a few). It doesn't always work (see MS Money).
More importantly, the "source code" they give you may or may not match the binary they give you.
Several problems, one: Socialist to Capitalist is an economic spectrum, not a political one. Two: there is no such thing as a capitalist police state. in order for an economic system to be capitalist, the individual must be able to decide how to use the means of production that said individual controls (whether that means of production is a large amount of capital equipment or merely that individual's personal labor).
The political spectrum runs from all rights and powers deriving from the individual to all rights and powers deriving from the group. The only difference between Communism and Fascism is how they define the group.
Except the party in Fascism is a very small group at the top as compared to the party in Communism as the entire population.
Where has that ever been true of Communism? Every Communist country I have ever heard of there is a very small group at the top, who reap almost all of the benefits, just like in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. Where have you ever seen a Communist country where the whole didn't work for the benefit of the few.
I believe the problem here is that you are comparing the ideals of Communism to the actual execution of Fascism rather than either the execution of Communism or the ideals of Fascism.
as to your analogy:
COMMUNISM:
You have two cows
The government takes both and promises to give you milk next year (while the Party bosses bathe in milk this year)
FASCISM:
You have two cows
The government takes both, sells you a little milk and promises to give you new, improved cows next year (while the Party bosses dine on steak).
Both fascists and communists emphasize the good of the group (as defined by the Party) over the good of the individual (as defined by the individual). How is nationalism at the other end of the political spectrum from that? Nationalist political organizations are almost always in favor of strong central government, although there are exceptions.